In the act of change a phenomenon changes into another phenomenon, this change as "one thing leading into another" is a form of transparency as we see one phenomenon through another. To look at it another way, if all things are connected then one thing leads to another and with this state of 'leading into another' we see past what we originally have seen.
No it's not a form of transparency. You aren't seeing on phenomenon through another, it's just changing from one thing to another. Like I said everything is connected and separate, you're just wrong here. You're not seeing through anything.
If everything is connected and separate then connection and separation are one and you cannot make the distinction between the two.
Wrong. The connection and separation aren't one and you can make a distinction between the two, otherwise things couldn't be connected and separate.
You're out of your depth on this one. Better minds than you have argued nonduality and you ain't doing it.
It's also weird that you're trying to "Argue" it (I use the word loosely) because from what I'm told it's a subtle truth you have to experience and people can only refer to it by what it is NOT (and even then that's not entirely true).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:32 pm
6. Order comes from spontaneity as it just appears. The impression that one thing appears from another is just an impression as one thing occurs then a different thing with this difference being a form of spontaneity. Connection between things only shows an absence of distinction between things thus leaving us only with differences and with this difference there is a spontaneity. Order requires symmetry and with symmetry an absence of distinctions. One thing leading to another thing is just continual spontaneity, due to difference, as the absence of distinctions required between symmetrical things leaves a nature of emptiness.
7. We assume order because one thing follows another yet it is this action of "one thing following another" that can be dually observed in reverse where anything can be observed as ordered if one thing follows another, yet in the nature of a raw spontaneity one thing follows another thus spontaneity can come before order. The observation of order is as spontaneous as the spontaneity that allows the one thing to be followed by another.
8. "The more things change the more they stay the same." With the continual change of a thing comes a transparency of boundaries as one thing is seen through another due to their connections. This transparency eliminates the boundaries into a conceptual unity as one distinctness leads to a further distinctness thus leaving distinctness as empty in itself as there is no comparison for it as that is all there is. In change one boundary results in another thus resulting in a transparent unity where paradoxically all things become one as they are connected by their very nature of having boundaries with one boundary being seen through another as one is connected to another. The transparency of things is the emptiness of things with this emptiness occurring by the inherent oneness things share due to an absence of distinction between boundaries (as all there is is boundaries) and one boundary leading to another thus leaving it as empty in itself.
Number 6 is just false, there are predictable laws that reality follows that form a sort of order. We can even math it out, it doesn't just appear it just is. A connection between two things is only possible due to a distinction between two things. Otherwise it would just be one thing and no connection. Also order doesn't require symmetry, this is just false too, looking at the food chain in nature for example. Again, bad logic and honestly just nonsense.
Number 7 is also wrong, there is no such thing as spontaneity. What we call that is simply the lack of information of all the factors leading up to such an event. If you had total knowledge of all factors in the universe you could predict everything with total certainty because we do live in a deterministic universe. It's not an observation of order, ORDER IS EXISTENCE.
Number 8 is still wrong. Looking at all the ages over the Earth that changed. Dinosaur type animals can't exist because the climate changed and current climate change is going to wipe us out. Change doesn't mean everything stays the same, even Buddhism knows this. Impermanence is it's foundation, or to say "you never step in the same river twice".
There is no transparency of boundaries, they do in fact exist and they form and break down all the time. It's just physics. The rest of number 8 is just wrong and flawed logic, not to mention nonsense. It falls apart because your "definition" of transparency is just wrong.
There is no absence of distinction between boundaries and I seriously suggest you consider googling contradiction before using it.
Lastly all things are not one, this PROVES you don't understand nonduality.
1. Order is assigned meaning and as assigned meaning is subjective. The subjective state of an observation is not universally observed, otherwise it would be objective and as objective ordered, with this lack of universality making it disorganized by its own standards as it has no symmetry.
2. And if we lack the knowledge of everything how can we state the universe is determistic and ordered. Unless you say it is both deterministic and non-determistic.
3. If you never step in the same river twice then how can you continuously call it by the same name?
4. I am not arguing for or against non-duality....you are making assumptions.
Darkneos wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:38 pm
No it's not a form of transparency. You aren't seeing on phenomenon through another, it's just changing from one thing to another. Like I said everything is connected and separate, you're just wrong here. You're not seeing through anything.
If everything is connected and separate then connection and separation are one and you cannot make the distinction between the two.
Wrong. The connection and separation aren't one and you can make a distinction between the two, otherwise things couldn't be connected and separate.
You're out of your depth on this one. Better minds than you have argued nonduality and you ain't doing it.
It's also weird that you're trying to "Argue" it (I use the word loosely) because from what I'm told it's a subtle truth you have to experience and people can only refer to it by what it is NOT (and even then that's not entirely true).
1. Then why state everything is "connected and seperated"?
2. If it can only be refer to by "what it is not" then one can say it is "not not this"
Number 2 is just false. Opposition isn't contradiction. You're literally just repeating that boundaries require distinctions, which is obviously the case in nature. Everything is connected and separate. Duh.
2a nope. There is no inner space of the circle or the outer space of the circle, there is just the circle. Again you don't understand logic. The division isn't opposition.
The seperation of things necessitates the distinctness of things with this shared nature of being distinct necessitating all things as simultaneously connected. The connection of all things requires things to work together but it is this nature of there being "things working together" (i.e. there being "things") there is a manifestation of distinction thus seperation.
3. Division: the action of separating something into parts or the process of being separated.
The seperation of things necessitates the distinctness of things with this shared nature of being distinct necessitating all things as simultaneously connected. The connection of all things requires things to work together but it is this nature of there being "things working together" (i.e. there being "things") there is a manifestation of distinction thus seperation.
3. Division: the action of separating something into parts or the process of being separated.
1. I know what contradiction means and that definition still proves you wrong. Things aren't contradictions.
Here's the definition of it:
: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something
Throwing google definitions around is just embarrassing for you.
Like...I'm pretty sure you don't know what words mean or how logic works.
"....features of a situation that are opposed to one another." Features are things and things are features.
Laughably incorrect, features aren't things. God...maybe it is easier to just call you stupid.
Also I thought you said there was no distinction? So why are you calling features things and things features? If they're the same thing just say feature feature or thing thing. Hmm...it's almost like things are different.
1. I know what contradiction means and that definition still proves you wrong. Things aren't contradictions.
Here's the definition of it:
: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something
Throwing google definitions around is just embarrassing for you.
Like...I'm pretty sure you don't know what words mean or how logic works.
"....features of a situation that are opposed to one another." Features are things and things are features.
Laughably incorrect, features aren't things. God...maybe it is easier to just call you stupid.
Also I thought you said there was no distinction? So why are you calling features things and things features? If they're the same thing just say feature feature or thing thing. Hmm...it's almost like things are different.
1. So the feature of the keyboard having buttons makes a button not a thing?
2. If all things are distinct then all things are connected by the nature of being distinct thus no distinction occurs. This is a paradox.
"....features of a situation that are opposed to one another." Features are things and things are features.
Laughably incorrect, features aren't things. God...maybe it is easier to just call you stupid.
Also I thought you said there was no distinction? So why are you calling features things and things features? If they're the same thing just say feature feature or thing thing. Hmm...it's almost like things are different.
1. So the feature of the keyboard having buttons makes a button not a thing?
2. If all things are distinct then all things are connected by the nature of being distinct thus no distinction occurs. This is a paradox.
1. Not what I said at all.
2. Wrong, like...just factually wrong. Also not what paradox means.
Like you're trying to say we invented distinctions when by that same logic we invented oneness and unity too. Your philosophy by your definitions would be empty and a contradiction. So this whole time you're just arguing against yourself.
Laughably incorrect, features aren't things. God...maybe it is easier to just call you stupid.
Also I thought you said there was no distinction? So why are you calling features things and things features? If they're the same thing just say feature feature or thing thing. Hmm...it's almost like things are different.
1. So the feature of the keyboard having buttons makes a button not a thing?
2. If all things are distinct then all things are connected by the nature of being distinct thus no distinction occurs. This is a paradox.
1. Not what I said at all.
2. Wrong, like...just factually wrong. Also not what paradox means.
Like you're trying to say we invented distinctions when by that same logic we invented oneness and unity too. Your philosophy by your definitions would be empty and a contradiction. So this whole time you're just arguing against yourself.
1. So a feature is a thing if a feature is a distinction and a distinction is a thing.
2. Assertion on your part. If there is a multiplicity of things and all these things are distinct then these things are connected through the phenomenon of "distinction" which all share.
3. You said we assign meaning elsewhere. If that is the case non-dualism is assigning meaning to things by stating what they are not (negative boundaries).
1. So the feature of the keyboard having buttons makes a button not a thing?
2. If all things are distinct then all things are connected by the nature of being distinct thus no distinction occurs. This is a paradox.
1. Not what I said at all.
2. Wrong, like...just factually wrong. Also not what paradox means.
Like you're trying to say we invented distinctions when by that same logic we invented oneness and unity too. Your philosophy by your definitions would be empty and a contradiction. So this whole time you're just arguing against yourself.
1. So a feature is a thing if a feature is a distinction and a distinction is a thing.
2. Assertion on your part. If there is a multiplicity of things and all these things are distinct then these things are connected through the phenomenon of "distinction" which all share.
3. You said we assign meaning elsewhere. If that is the case non-dualism is assigning meaning to things by stating what they are not (negative boundaries).
2. No not an assertion, literally just not what a paradox is.
3. Wrong, not at all what I said about nondualism.
Also what is the point here? Like your logic doesn't make sense and you're just being contrarian. What are you getting at?
2. Wrong, like...just factually wrong. Also not what paradox means.
Like you're trying to say we invented distinctions when by that same logic we invented oneness and unity too. Your philosophy by your definitions would be empty and a contradiction. So this whole time you're just arguing against yourself.
1. So a feature is a thing if a feature is a distinction and a distinction is a thing.
2. Assertion on your part. If there is a multiplicity of things and all these things are distinct then these things are connected through the phenomenon of "distinction" which all share.
3. You said we assign meaning elsewhere. If that is the case non-dualism is assigning meaning to things by stating what they are not (negative boundaries).
2. No not an assertion, literally just not what a paradox is.
3. Wrong, not at all what I said about nondualism.
Also what is the point here? Like your logic doesn't make sense and you're just being contrarian. What are you getting at?
1. So a feature is a thing if a feature is a distinction and a distinction is a thing.
2. Assertion on your part. If there is a multiplicity of things and all these things are distinct then these things are connected through the phenomenon of "distinction" which all share.
3. You said we assign meaning elsewhere. If that is the case non-dualism is assigning meaning to things by stating what they are not (negative boundaries).
2. No not an assertion, literally just not what a paradox is.
3. Wrong, not at all what I said about nondualism.
Also what is the point here? Like your logic doesn't make sense and you're just being contrarian. What are you getting at?
If there is a multiplicity of phenomenon, and all share this phenomenon known as "distinctness", then this multiplicity is one.
2. I never said you said that about nondualism. I am just following the logic of "meaning is assigned" which you stated elsewhere.
3. If my logic does not make sense...okay...then what is logic?
You're just picking the definition that agrees with you:
Here:
a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
2. No you aren't following the logic of meaning is assigned as evidenced by what you said about nondualism.
I'll repeat, what is the point here? You're not making a point and just refuting yourself with each argument.
If there is a multiplicity of phenomenon, and all share this phenomenon known as "distinctness", then this multiplicity is one.
2. I never said you said that about nondualism. I am just following the logic of "meaning is assigned" which you stated elsewhere.
3. If my logic does not make sense...okay...then what is logic?
You're just picking the definition that agrees with you:
Here:
a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
2. No you aren't following the logic of meaning is assigned as evidenced by what you said about nondualism.
I'll repeat, what is the point here? You're not making a point and just refuting yourself with each argument.
1. What I posted is what the dictionary said. You are the one picking definitions. The definition of paradox is dependent upon context and the definition I provided fits the context of its use.
If there is a multiplicity of phenomenon, and all share this phenomenon known as "distinctness", then this multiplicity is one.
2. I never said you said that about nondualism. I am just following the logic of "meaning is assigned" which you stated elsewhere.
3. If my logic does not make sense...okay...then what is logic?
You're just picking the definition that agrees with you:
Here:
a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
2. No you aren't following the logic of meaning is assigned as evidenced by what you said about nondualism.
I'll repeat, what is the point here? You're not making a point and just refuting yourself with each argument.
1. What I posted is what the dictionary said. You are the one picking definitions. The definition of paradox is dependent upon context and the definition I provided fits the context of its use.
2. Non-dualism is a concept we apply meaning too.
3. You are ignoring my question. What is logic?
It's not what the dictionary said, you just picked the one that agreed with you and then I showed another one.
2. Non dualism isn't a concept we apply meaning to, to say this is ignorance of it.
Again, what is the point. None of your threads seem to have a point or direction. So I say it again, what is the point here? What are you getting at?
Darkneos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:42 am
You're just picking the definition that agrees with you:
Here:
a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
2. No you aren't following the logic of meaning is assigned as evidenced by what you said about nondualism.
I'll repeat, what is the point here? You're not making a point and just refuting yourself with each argument.
1. What I posted is what the dictionary said. You are the one picking definitions. The definition of paradox is dependent upon context and the definition I provided fits the context of its use.
2. Non-dualism is a concept we apply meaning too.
3. You are ignoring my question. What is logic?
It's not what the dictionary said, you just picked the one that agreed with you and then I showed another one.
2. Non dualism isn't a concept we apply meaning to, to say this is ignorance of it.
Again, what is the point. None of your threads seem to have a point or direction. So I say it again, what is the point here? What are you getting at?
1. The definition applies to the context in which it occurs. Multiple definitions are the result of multiple contexts.
2. It is a definition by way of negation, it describes by what is not. As a definition it is a concept.
3. If my threads have no point or direction then why bother with them?
1. What I posted is what the dictionary said. You are the one picking definitions. The definition of paradox is dependent upon context and the definition I provided fits the context of its use.
2. Non-dualism is a concept we apply meaning too.
3. You are ignoring my question. What is logic?
It's not what the dictionary said, you just picked the one that agreed with you and then I showed another one.
2. Non dualism isn't a concept we apply meaning to, to say this is ignorance of it.
Again, what is the point. None of your threads seem to have a point or direction. So I say it again, what is the point here? What are you getting at?
1. The definition applies to the context in which it occurs. Multiple definitions are the result of multiple contexts.
2. It is a definition by way of negation, it describes by what is not. As a definition it is a concept.
3. If my threads have no point or direction then why bother with them?
1. No, you're just picking what agrees with you to make the point. Even by your definition you're still wrong.